Even if the plaintiff, with the intention of donation, made the defendant prepare necessary documents for the registration of ownership and deposited them with the office of judicial secretary, it cannot be said that it is the completion of the written donation or the execution of the donation contract.

The mere fact that the plaintiff made a document necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership to the defendant with the intention of donation and deposited to the Judicial Secretary General cannot be deemed as the completion of the written donation or the execution of the donation contract.

Article 55 of the Civil Act, Article 558 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court Decision 70Na28 delivered on June 4, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below decided to donate the real estate of this case owned by the plaintiff to the same defendant on June 30 of the same year after the time when the plaintiff had his husband's non-party 1 and his husband's non-party 1 and the defendant 2 wanted to enter them in the post-math on March 1967. The plaintiff delivered the plaintiff's certificate of personal seal impression, etc. to the same defendant, and prepared documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership, and deposited them to the head of the office of judicial affairs and the head of the same Si/Gun/Gu, and the defendant was entered in the post-math on July 4 of the same year (as of the judgment of the court below, "the fourth day of the same month" recognized as a clerical error in the judgment of the court below), although the plaintiff notified that he would not transfer the real estate of this case to the defendant 1 on September of the same year, the defendant neglected it, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on his own name on October 18, 1967.

Thus, the plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot be deemed as a bilateral contract having a quid pro quo relationship with the plaintiff's deceased non-party 1's ex post facto donation, as well as it cannot be deemed as a bilateral contract with the plaintiff's expression of intent to cancel the donation. Thus, the contract on the gift of this case between the defendant, such as the plaintiff, was cancelled, because the plaintiff prepared documents necessary for the transfer registration of ownership to the defendant with respect to the real estate of this case and deposited it to the judicial assistant, it cannot be deemed as a written donation or the completion of the donation contract.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)